Main Recommendations
The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan.
1
ESGE recommends colonic ...stenting to be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and radiological signs of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation. ESGE does not recommend prophylactic stent placement.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
2
ESGE recommends stenting as a bridge to surgery to be discussed, within a shared decision-making process, as a treatment option in patients with potentially curable left-sided obstructing colon cancer as an alternative to emergency resection.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
3
ESGE recommends colonic stenting as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
4
ESGE suggests consideration of colonic stenting for malignant obstruction of the proximal colon either as a bridge to surgery or in a palliative setting.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
5
ESGE suggests a time interval of approximately 2 weeks until resection when colonic stenting is performed as a bridge to elective surgery in patients with curable left-sided colon cancer.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
6
ESGE recommends that colonic stenting should be performed or directly supervised by an operator who can demonstrate competence in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performs colonic stenting on a regular basis.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
7
ESGE suggests that a decompressing stoma as a bridge to elective surgery is a valid option if the patient is not a candidate for colonic stenting or when stenting expertise is not available.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
Main recommendations
ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and ...chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).
ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.
ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.
For Barrett’s esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.
ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.
ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.
ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.
ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.
ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.
ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.
ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.
Main Recommendations
Patients with chronic atrophic gastritis or intestinal metaplasia (IM) are at risk for gastric adenocarcinoma. This underscores the importance of diagnosis and risk ...stratification for these patients. High definition endoscopy with chromoendoscopy (CE) is better than high definition white-light endoscopy alone for this purpose. Virtual CE can guide biopsies for staging atrophic and metaplastic changes and can target neoplastic lesions. Biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (antrum and corpus) and labelled in two separate vials. For patients with mild to moderate atrophy restricted to the antrum there is no evidence to recommend surveillance. In patients with IM at a single location but with a family history of gastric cancer, incomplete IM, or persistent
Helicobacter pylori
gastritis, endoscopic surveillance with CE and guided biopsies may be considered in 3 years. Patients with advanced stages of atrophic gastritis should be followed up with a high quality endoscopy every 3 years. In patients with dysplasia, in the absence of an endoscopically defined lesion, immediate high quality endoscopic reassessment with CE is recommended. Patients with an endoscopically visible lesion harboring low or high grade dysplasia or carcinoma should undergo staging and treatment.
H. pylori
eradication heals nonatrophic chronic gastritis, may lead to regression of atrophic gastritis, and reduces the risk of gastric cancer in patients with these conditions, and it is recommended.
H. pylori
eradication is also recommended for patients with neoplasia after endoscopic therapy. In intermediate to high risk regions, identification and surveillance of patients with precancerous gastric conditions is cost-effective.
Main Recommendations
Prophylaxis
1
ESGE recommends routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in ...all patients without contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
2
ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic stenting in selected patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (inadvertent guidewire insertion/opacification of the pancreatic duct, double-guidewire cannulation).
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
3
ESGE suggests against routine endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy before the insertion of a single plastic stent or an uncovered/partially covered self-expandable metal stent for relief of biliary obstruction.
Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
4
ESGE recommends against the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
5
ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP in the case of anticipated incomplete biliary drainage, for severely immunocompromised patients, and when performing cholangioscopy.
Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
6
ESGE suggests tests of coagulation are not routinely required prior to ERCP for patients who are not on anticoagulants and not jaundiced.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
Treatment
7
ESGE suggests against salvage pancreatic stenting in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
8
ESGE suggests temporary placement of a biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent for post-sphincterotomy bleeding refractory to standard hemostatic modalities.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
9
ESGE suggests to evaluate patients with post-ERCP cholangitis by abdominal ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) scan and, in the absence of improvement with conservative therapy, to consider repeat ERCP. A bile sample should be collected for microbiological examination during repeat ERCP.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
Main recommendations
Small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE)
1
ESGE recommends that prior to SBCE patients ingest a purgative (2 L of polyethylene glycol PEG) for better visualization.
Strong ...recommendation, high quality evidence. However, the optimal timing for taking purgatives is yet to be established.
2
ESGE recommends that SBCE should be performed as an outpatient procedure if possible, since completion rates are higher in outpatients than in inpatients.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
3
ESGE recommends that patients with pacemakers can safely undergo SBCE without special precautions.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
4
ESGE suggests that SBCE can also be safely performed in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
5
ESGE recommends the acceptance of qualified nurses and trained technicians as prereaders of capsule endoscopy studies as their competency in identifying pathology is similar to that of medically qualified readers. The responsibility of establishing a diagnosis must however remain with the attending physician.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
6
ESGE recommends observation in cases of asymptomatic capsule retention.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
In cases where capsule retrieval is indicated, ESGE recommends the use of device-assisted enteroscopy as the method of choice.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE)
1
ESGE recommends performing diagnostic DAE as a day-case procedure in patients without significant underlying co-morbidities; in patients with co-morbidities and/or those undergoing a therapeutic procedure, an inpatient stay is recommended.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence
The choice between different settings also depends on sedation protocols.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
2
ESGE suggests that conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia are all acceptable alternatives: the choice between them should be governed by procedure complexity, clinical factors, and local organizational protocols.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
3
ESGE recommends that the findings of previous diagnostic investigations should guide the choice of insertion route. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
If the location of the small-bowel lesion is unknown or uncertain, ESGE recommends that the antegrade route should be generally preferred. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
In the setting of massive overt bleeding, ESGE recommends an initial antegrade approach.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
4
ESGE recommends that, for balloon-assisted enteroscopy (i. e., single-balloon enteroscopy SBE and double-balloon enteroscopy DBE), small-bowel insertion depth should be estimated by counting net advancement of the enteroscope during the insertion phase, with confirmation of this estimate during withdrawal.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
ESGE recommends that, for spiral enteroscopy, insertion depth should be estimated during withdrawal.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
Since the calculated insertion depth is only a rough estimate, ESGE recommends placing a tattoo to mark the identified lesion and/or the deepest point of insertion.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
5
ESGE recommends that all endoscopic therapeutic procedures can be undertaken at the time of DAE.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
Moreover, when therapeutic interventions are performed, additional specific safety measures are needed to prevent complications.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
Main Recommendations
ESGE recommends against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction; preoperative biliary drainage should be reserved for ...patients with cholangitis, severe symptomatic jaundice (e. g., intense pruritus), or delayed surgery, or for before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in jaundiced patients. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
ESGE recommends the endoscopic placement of a 10-mm diameter self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for preoperative biliary drainage of malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
ESGE recommends SEMS insertion for palliative drainage of of extrahepatic malignant biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
ESGE recommends against the insertion of uncovered SEMS for the drainage of extrahepatic biliary obstruction of unconfirmed etiology. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
ESGE suggests against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant hilar obstruction. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
ESGE recommends uncovered SEMSs for palliative drainage of malignant hilar obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
ESGE recommends temporary insertion of multiple plastic stents or of a fully covered SEMS for treatment of benign biliary strictures. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of plastic stent(s) to treat bile duct leaks that are not due to transection of the common bile duct or common hepatic duct. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
Main Recommendations
1
ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde ...cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
2
ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.
Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
3
ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
4
ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
5
ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.
Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence.
6
ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
7
ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
8
ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
Main Recommendations
The following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality ...baseline colonoscopy.
1
ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 – 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
2
ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
3
ESGE recommends a 3 – 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
4
If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening.
5
ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).
Main Recommendations
ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention.
Strong ...recommendation, low quality evidence.
ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines:
– severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock
– moderate, within 48 – 72 hours
– mild, elective.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.
ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
Abstract
We are currently living in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic that imposes a significant stress on health care providers and facilities. Europe is severely affected with an exponential ...increase in incident infections and deaths. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 can be subtle, encompassing a broad spectrum from asymptomatic mild disease to severe respiratory illness. Health care professionals in endoscopy units are at increased risk of infection from COVID-19. Infection prevention and control has been shown to be dramatically effective in assuring the safety of both health care professionals and patients. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (www.esge.com) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (www.esgena.org) are joining forces to provide guidance during this pandemic to help assure the highest level of endoscopy care and protection against COVID-19 for both patients and endoscopy unit personnel. This guidance is based upon the best available evidence regarding assessment of risk during the current status of the pandemic and a consensus on which procedures to perform and the priorities on resumption. We appreciate the gaps in knowledge and evidence, especially on the proper strategy(ies) for the resumption of normal endoscopy practice during the upcoming phases and end of the pandemic and therefore a list of potential research questions is presented. New evidence may result in an updated statement.
PDF
